Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Monday, April 15, 2024
Dawkins is the beneficiary of a political and legal system shaped over centuries by Christian principles of justice, human nature, and more. He appears blissfully unaware that he is sawing off the very branch suspending him safely above the mob of Islamists, radical leftists, and others, ready and willing to dispense with classical liberals like himself who only (rather ineffectively) impede their advance and triumph.

Perhaps to the surprise of many, Richard Dawkins, famed “New Atheist” of yesteryear, in a recent radio interview called himself a “cultural Christian.” He was quick to clarify that he is “not a believer” in the actual teachings of Christianity, but nonetheless told the interviewer “I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.” This exchange was prompted by the discomfort Dawkins felt in the build-up to Easter seeing England full of lights celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.
Beyond mere aesthetics, Dawkins also stated that he likes to “live in a culturally Christian country” because it is kind to women and tolerant of homosexuals, whereas Islam is fundamentally hostile to both. The tenets of political liberalism happily coincide for Dawkins with a basically Christian culture, though in reality, the specific form of tolerance Dawkins takes to be the Christian culture of Britain is a twisting of the Christian virtues of kindness and love. What is particularly striking is how the rise of militant Islam, combined with the rapidly increasing numbers of Muslims throughout the UK (and all of Europe for that matter), is what prompted Dawkins’ reflections on Christian culture.
Islam is a militantly intolerant religion, but it is also a confident one. Islamic teaching—as wrong as it is—provides its adherents with an understanding of why they exist and how they should live in the world. It gives them meaning and purpose. Political liberalism is impotent in the face of Islam because political liberalism has no positive vision for life. It puts forth certain rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and so forth. Yet, it is unable to tell you why you should even want to live, what you should desire to be free to do, or how you can find happiness. Some of those rights, properly understood, are good and important as far as they go. No one may kill or imprison anyone else without cause; in general, it is best to let people live their own lives without massive interference from others, and so on. Islam, however, has a positive vision for all of life, which is why it is bulldozing every existentially empty competitor in its path.
Dawkins, I’m sure without realizing it, is the heir to many more benefits of Britain’s Christian past than he realizes. In the interview, he primarily focused on the outward, mostly aesthetic, trappings of Christianity, as well as his conflation of Christianity and progressive social mores. But consider just a few of the much more foundational things citizens of nations formerly shaped by Christianity enjoy, though often take for granted. The English, as also their American cousins, are subject to a long history of defending the concept of impartial justice.
Read More
Related Posts:

Jesus prohibits a critical spirit, but does not forbid all use of the critical faculty. To follow Jesus, we must therefore discover why he says, “Judge not,” in Matthew 7, but says, “Judge with right judgment,” in John 7. Notice first that Jesus tells His disciples to make judgments in the very chapter that says “Judge not.” Later in Matthew 7, Jesus says, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them (vv. 15-16). That is, disciples must discern – must judge – who is a false prophet and who is a true one. 

I just read again what is most likely the most misused and abused passage in all of Scripture. And I also just read two obvious correctives to such lousy interpretations and understandings that immediately follow from it. I refer of course to Matthew 7. Verses 1-5 – especially v. 1 – are the ones routinely massacred, even by so many Christians. They are certainly quite well known:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
How many times have you heard it said – even by rather clueless Christians – that we must never judge? Yet if you press these folks and say that folks ARE to make distinctions between what is true and false, right and wrong, they will reply, ‘Oh, but that is different.’
Um, no it is not different. You cannot judge without being discerning and making distinctions. Whenever you discern and test and evaluate you are of necessity making a judgment. They go together – it is a package deal. Christians and non-Christians alike thus judge every single day – whether they are making a choice between a cappuccino and a flat white, or between one person and another for a marriage partner.
Judgment and discernment go together. And the very next verse in Matthew 7 makes this clear. Jesus goes on to say this in v. 6: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Deciding who is a dog or a pig, and deciding what is holy, are all matters of judgment and discernment. – can’t be avoided.
But it does not stop there. Just a few verses later we get even more commands by Jesus to judge and discern. Verses 15-20 say this:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
No one reading all of Matthew 7 can ever come away with the nonsensical notion that the Christian is not to judge. Quite the opposite: while the Christian is not to engage in HYPOCRITICAL judging (which is exactly the point of verses 1-5), the believer IS to constantly judge, discern, assess, test, and weigh things up. This is commanded throughout Scripture.
All sensible (and discriminating) expositors of Scripture of course understand this. They will not fall for the ‘do not judge’ silliness. Let me draw upon a few of them here. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his Studies on the Sermon on the Mount says this:
If our Lord had finished His teaching with those first five verses, it would undoubtedly have led to a false position. Men and women would be so careful to avoid the terrible danger of judging in that wrong sense that they would exercise no discrimination, no judgment whatsoever. There would be no such thing as discipline in the Church, and the whole of the Christian life would be chaotic.
Read More
Related Posts:

Melchizedek brought out bread and wine, and bread and wine symbolize the broken body of the new and greater Melchizedek. I think this is another example of picture prophecy (i.e., typology) that God intended all along. When Jesus the Messiah died, he inaugurated the new covenant—the better covenant. And we remember that with bread and wine. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine.” I think that’s another example in which Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek.[5]

The Old Testament mentions Melchizedek only twice:
[1] And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen. 14:18–20)
[2] The Lord has swornand will not change his mind,“You are a priest foreverAfter [in (NIV, NLT)] the order [pattern (CSB, NET)] of Melchizedek.” (Ps. 110:4)
Here’s the context of that strange Melchizedek passage in Genesis 14: A group of local “kings” (more like small-town governors) banded together to fight another group of local “kings” (Gen. 14:8–10). One of those groups of “kings” included the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah, where Abram’s brother Lot was dwelling. That group lost the battle, and the enemy took Lot and his possessions as spoil (Gen. 14:11–12). When Abram learned that Lot was taken, he led 318 of his trained men to pursue Lot, and Abram successfully rescued Lot and his possessions along with other people (Gen. 14:13–16). The king of Sodom met with Abram (Gen. 14:17) and asked for his people back but said that Abram may keep the possessions (Gen. 14:21). But Abram gave both the people and the possessions back (Gen. 14:22–24).
Genesis 14 would make perfect sense without verses 18–20. This passage sticks out and makes you scratch your head and go, “What?” The Book of Hebrews helps us make sense of all this.
Melchizedek appears in the Bible three times with about one thousand years between each occurrence:

Genesis 14: Around 2,000 BC, Melchizedek appears to Abraham.
Psalm 110: About 1,000 years later, King David writes about the Messiah as a priest in the pattern of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5–7: About 1,000 years later, the author of Hebrews exults in Jesus the Messiah as our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek.

The author of Hebrews teaches us how to put the whole Bible together. He is reading Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 very carefully, and he draws at least eight conclusions about Jesus the Messiah.
1. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, he is the supreme priest (Heb. 4:14–5:10).
Jesus is the “great high priest” (Heb. 4:14) who is better than “every [other] high priest chosen from among men” (Heb. 5:1):
And no one takes this honor [i.e., the honor of serving as high priest] for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, / today I have begotten you” [Ps. 2:7]; as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, / after the order of Melchizedek” [Ps. 110:4]. … Being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 5:4–6, 9–10)
2. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, he has entered the Most Holy Place on our behalf (Heb. 6:19–20).
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 6:19–20)
The “inner place behind the curtain” refers to the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle where God’s holy presence dwelt. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place, and he could only do so only once a year on the Day of Atonement to atone for Israel’s sin. Jesus, however, has entered this place “once for all at the end of ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26).
3. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, he is both king and priest (Heb. 7:1–2).
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. (Heb. 7:1–2)
Melchizedek was both a king and a priest. His name means king (Hebrew: mlk) of righteousness (Hebrew: zdk). And he was the king of Salem (probably Jerusalem). Shalom means peace, so as the king of Salem, he is the king of peace.
A king-priest is an unusual combination. The Mosaic law distinguished between the office of priest and the office of king (e.g., Deut. 17:8–20); priests came from the tribe of Levi, and kings came from the tribe of Judah. The same person wasn’t supposed to serve as both priest and king. Saul, the first king of Israel, tried to combine those roles by offering a priestly sacrifice instead of waiting for Samuel the priest, and God severely judged him for it (1 Sam. 13).
David recognizes in Psalm 110 that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with the same person serving as both king and priest. God created Adam to be a royal priest,[1] and that’s what Melchizedek was. David knows that he isn’t supposed to do that under the Mosaic law, but he recognizes that before the Mosaic law there was a king-priest, and David sees himself as part of a pattern that culminates in the Messiah, who is both king and priest—in the pattern of Melchizedek.[2]
4. Because Jesus the Messiah is our priest in the pattern of Melchizedek, his priesthood is eternal (Heb. 7:3).
He is without [record of] father or mother or genealogy, having [no record of] neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. (Heb. 7:3)
All the important humans in the Book of Genesis have a genealogy. Melchizedek stands out because Genesis doesn’t say anything about his genealogy. He just shows up out of nowhere.
Read More
Related Posts: